IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 301 of 2012
­­­­­­
1. Manoj Dubey @ Manoj Kumar Dubey
2. Ashok Dubey @ Ashok Kumar Dubey
3. Sanjay Dubey @ Sanjay Kumar Dubey
4. Vikash Dubey @ Vikash Kumar Dubey
5. Sumitra Devi @ Sumitra Kunwar
.... .... …. Petitioners
­­­Versus­­­
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party
­­­­­­
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
­­­­­­ For the Petitioners
: Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the State
: A.P.P.
­­­­­­
08/27.02.2013
Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State.
Petitioners have filed this application against the order dated 25th January, 2012 passed in S.T. No. 74 of 2010 arising out of Rehla P.S. Case No. 34 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 1002 of 2008 whereby the petitioner's application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected by the Sessions Judge­II, Palamau.
Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the investigation there are number of materials which does not support the prosecution case. Further, it has been proved from the statement of the victim lady that she has died her natural death and not a single witness has said that the victim lady has committed suicide. He has further submitted that in the statement of the villagers there is nothing specific against the petitioner regarding any torture. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for calling the case diary to see the statement of the witnesses and also the materials collected at the time of investigation.
Counsel for the State has pointed out that the victim lady has committed suicide putting herself on the railway track. He has further submitted that it has come in the investigation and also in the F.I.R. that none of the petitioners informed about the death of the victim lady to her family members. He has also pointed out that it has 2 Cr. Revision No. 301 of 2012
come in the impugned order that the statements of the witnesses at Para 27, 28 & 29 of the case diary clearly support the prosecution case.
From the impugned order, I find that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners regarding his involvement in the commission of the offence. Furthermore, I find from the impugned order that there is a detail discussion regarding the statements of the witnesses. It has further come in the impugned order that without informing the family members of the informant and without informing the police, they burnt the dead body to conceal the evidence. Furthermore, it has also come in the impugned order that the witnesses at Para 27, 28 ,29, 38 & 39 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case showing the complicity of these petitioners in the commission of the offence.
Considering all these aspects and considering the fact that sufficient materials have come in the investigation, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision application is rejected.
(Jaya Roy, J.)
Anit